It’s been a while since I posted here (as guruilla, and before that as Aeolus Kephas), and what brings me back, surprise surprise, is the same subject that, unless I’m mistaken, brought me here in the first place. This is going to be a long post, so apologies in advance for that, but hopefully it’ll be worth it. A little back story before I get to the real subject and the title of the topic:

Having followed Strieber’s work since I was 23 or so (maybe 4 years after Communion first came out), in 2008 I wrote the article that first appeared at RI, got praised by Mac Tonnies a while before he died (not to suggest any connection there), was then published in Alien Words mag and Paranoia, and is currently on the web in a very slightly altered version, here. Whitley read the piece (I sent it to him) but only commented on it when it started generating interest, after Mac made his “devastating” comment, and people at Strieber’s Unknown Country website started talking about it. At that point, he said something about the author being a "clever disinformation agent” and zeroed in on how I cited his brash American voice as evidence that something wasn't right with the man. (That was the bit I took out of the piece later; he had a point, it was a very subjective, as well as personal, remark. Sorry Whits: my bad. )

(Unfortunately Whitley or someone has removed all traces of that discussion from the UC message board, although I used to have a copy somewhere of Whitley’s counterattack, so maybe I can dig it up.)

I recently found out that Penguin were re-releasing Strieber's book The Key, which in my opinion is far and away Strieber’s most interesting work. I was directed to UC for information about the differences between the new version and the old one, where I found a post by Whitley from last month on the subject. The gist of it is that, somehow, without Strieber realizing it, the original copy of The Key was edited, he believes by some sinister agent of censorship/disinfo at the publishers (though in a subsequent post he claims that the changes happened while the doc was still in his “hands” – i.e., before he sent it to the publishers). Only when the second edition was released and a reader pointed out the discrepancies, Strieber says, did he realize these changes had been made. He then lists all the differences between the two versions and adds comments that repeatedly stress just how sinister and subtly deceptive these changes are. I wasn't too convinced, however; the alleged "changes" seemed fairly minor, mostly innocuous, and sometimes even to have improved or added something to the text - meaning that what is now the second edition isn't necessarily the better one. (For those who don't know, The Key, Whitley claims, is the true transcript of a surprise dialogue he had with an "ascended master" who knocked on his hotel room door one night in Toronto, and gave him the secrets of the Universe - sorry if I left that out earlier.)

I posted a response suggesting an alternate explanation to Strieber’s paranoid insistence that sinister forces were behind the edits, namely, that Whitley had unconsciously altered the text via some sort of psychic interface with his software (something which has almost certainly happened in my experience). My comment was an attempt to get Strieber's attention (so far unsuccessful) and it was very carefully phrased because I know from personal experience how sensitive Strieber is, and how easily offended by any kind of criticism (if you don't believe me, ask Daniel Pinchbeck).

OK, I'm almost getting within spitting distance of the point, if you can hang on just a few more paragraphs. Among the comments, there was a link to a doc, called The Key: A Minority Report. It's quite long but it's worth reading for anyone interested in the book (maybe not that many here); the overall gist is that the first version is superior to the second and that the changes made by Strieber’s alleged “sinister hand” actually improve the text. The writer makes a pretty solid case for that and even for the possibility that the new version is the one that contains the disinfo. Strieber refers dismissively to this doc at a recent post, in which he rants about the conspiracies that are ruining his life and all the “insensitive, stupid swine (or people with a hidden agenda)” who dare to suggest that all this is just a selling ploy for the new version of his book. Strieber doesn’t deign to address any of the points in the doc, however, or even mention that it exists; he only remarks contemptuously: “There is even one person out there claiming that the ‘edits’ make the book better.” (A snorting smilie would not be out of place here.)

At the risk of getting side-tracked, Strieber’s rant continues:

“I am sick and tired of all this. . . . I have achieved something truly magnificent, which is coherent, focused contact with another level of reality. Instead of being honored for this, as I certainly deserve, I have been ostracized, demonized and hammered almost to a pulp. My books go completely unreviewed. It's as if I'm dead . . . I'm tired of it and I want what I deserve from this society, recognition of the value of what I have done, not this continual sinister response. It is a dreadful way to treat anybody, let alone somebody who has worked as hard and as honestly as I have and has, in fact, created something that could be the basis for a new flowering of humanity, at a time when the powers that be have entirely failed and have betrayed the human race, and have no further reason to be respected in any way whatsoever.”

When I first read Strieber's book, back in 2001, I thought it was probably the most profound thing I ever read. I’ve read it many times since then and I haven’t fundamentally changed that opinion, even though I now regard it, along with everything else Strieber has written, with a more skeptical eye. I don’t know where the book came from or how it came about, but one thing I am pretty sure of is that it’s not simply the product of Strieber’s imagination; ironically, his rather lame public persona and apparent mental instability are the best arguments for that. (If it was a work of fiction disguised as fact, then not only would it be an incredibly skillful, meticulously crafted, and ingenious deception, but it would also be a extremely profound one. Outside of certain written works, Strieber doesn't seem all that brilliant a man, much less an enlightened one.)

So what kind of intelligence is informing and directing his work, if not his own? More to the point, what’s the deal with the new/old versions of The Key?

What follows is taken from the Minority Report doc which Whitley indirectly scoffed at. [Italics are for Strieber's questions, bold for "the Master of the Key"'s replies, the rest is the commentary of the document-author.]

2nd ed:How do they control this world?By planning, and they use mind control.

1st ed p 36-37:How do they control this world?Very generally.

2nd ed:Am I under mind control?The opposite. The technological intervention that has occurred in your case has been done to make certain that general fields of control will not affect you.

1st:NOT PRESENT

This is the key bit. In the new version of the book, Whitley describes the "Master" telling him that, because of the implant he carries (something Strieber has talked about plenty elsewhere), he is not susceptible to mind control.

2nd ed:General fields of control?Directional suggestion that is applied to all who are enhanced electrically. This is the means of control of military and government.

1st ed p 37:General fields of control?Directional suggestion.

2nd ed:Telepathy?Radio frequencies. Extremely sensitive circuits can pick up and decode thought. Microwaves can be used to project thought into the brain. But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They create tendencies. The desire is to preserve the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum number of individuals.

1st ed p 37:Telepathy?Extremely sensitive circuits can pick up and decode thought. Microwaves can be used to project thought into the brain. But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They create tendencies. The desire is to preserve the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum number of individuals.

2nd ed:What do they do here?They enforce mankind’s blindness by preventing science from exploring the key mysteries of the past and discovering a practical means of expanding into the universe, and they maintain the official secrecy that keeps the question of whether or not aliens are here from being answered.

1st ed:What do they do here?They help to enforce mankind’s blindness by preventing science from exploring the key mysteries of the past and discovering a practical means of expanding into the universe.

The above exchanges in the 1st edition (p 36-37) have undergone numerous changes in the 2nd edition. If the changes were intentional, whether for censorship or improvement, this part of the conversation has been heavily changed, no doubt about it.

Starting here:2nd ed:How do they control this world?By planning, and they use mind control.

1st ed p 36-37:How do they control this world?Very generally.

Whitley’s critical reaction to the phrase “creatures of the dark”, previously discussed, calling it a “lurid” phrase more suitable for fiction could equally be had towards this section and its discussion of “mind control”. The phrase “mind control” is used as a kind of shorthand for any form of direct intervention in the naturally free-flowing thinking or decision-making process of any human being. But the term carries with it heavy science-fiction and conspiracy-theory baggage. Hearing it suddenly in the 2nd edition spring from the mouth of the Master is surprising, to say the least. In the rest of the book, he rarely uses a common or everyday way of expressing something when a more elegant or precise expression is available, however unusual or idiosyncratic it may be. —And that is, more or less, always. The Master is extremely careful about the associations different words carry, and it is probably because he understood his medium: a conversation is not a systematic treatise. The only thing to rely on for reference in a conversation is the other parts of the conversation. There are no diagrams, no formulas. Thus, when reading “The Key”, careful attention to the specific words used and the way they appear in different contexts is key to drawing the right associations.

“By planning” sounds like a throw-away remark: what it aims to say is obvious and it signifies nothing. One would expect others controlling the fate or destiny of Mankind to have “plans” — would they be acting at random? By contrast, “[v]ery generally” in the 1st edition is intentionally vague — this is not inconsistent with the Master in other parts of the conversation — but it is also careful not to be misleading.

2nd ed:Am I under mind control?The opposite. The technological intervention that has occurred in your case has been done to make certain that general fields of control will not affect you.

1st:NOT PRESENT

This is a major difference, and the concept it introduces, in context, is troubling. Whereas in the 1st edition, the suggestion is that masses of people — Mankind as a whole — is being very generally influenced, the 2nd edition, if anything, has a more sinister meaning: people who are “electrically enhanced” in government and in the military are so for the purpose of “mind control”.One might ask: how can all of Mankind being influenced — in any way — be less sinister than a smaller number of people in government and the military being controlled? At least in the latter case, there are still presumably some people left free.

The 1st edition’s “[v]ery generally” resonates with another part of the conversation. On page 57, the statement is made that “What you refer to as ‘the consumer society’ is actually a mechanism designed to ensure your proper transition from Pisces to Aquarius.” It is also said by the Master on page 57 that “We” — meaning him, others on a higher level, God, all — are “responsible [..] for the destruction of mankind” and “We are doing it by wealth”.

Everyone in the U.S. and in the West and in China — the “northern civilization” — participates in the consumer society. We purchase our goods with money. We live in the context of a vast economic system that has grown and evolved over hundreds of years for many countless reasons, many hidden to History — as with most things. The consumer society has grown as a function of technological progress, population growth, and other basic forces. It is unlikely that what the Master is saying is that the consumer society was engineered as some diabolical plot. Rather, his message is consistent with other parts of the book. Just as “the fall of mankind was the emergence of life on earth” (p 50) — just as in principle everything in Creation functions as many things at once — the consumer society, growing up on its own, is also “intended”: “Who intervenes?/God acts./That is to say, you./Remember that God is holographic. Thus all act when God acts. You act” (p 56).

The 1st edition’s language here can be read in a way consistent with ideas in the rest of the book. The 2nd edition introduces a concept that is not subtle or sophisticated, one that resembles science-fiction, making the Master use words or phraseology out of character in order to do so.

2nd ed: General fields of control?Directional suggestion that is applied to all who are enhanced electrically. This is the means of control of military and government.

1st ed p 37: General fields of control?Directional suggestion.

This comes down to the point made above: in the 1st edition, influence is applied “very generally” as if to increase certain among our tendencies in order that we are forced to confront them (e.g. greed) and evolve out of them. In the 2nd edition, certain people are “enhanced electrically”, and among them are some in government and in the military who are under “mind control”.

In this case of Whitley’s direct question: “Am I under mind control” — a question which he says he remembers asking, the answer to the question states quite remarkably that he, perhaps alone, is immune to the mind control more generally applied to others “enhanced electrically”.

But what about all the other alien abductees out there? Is everyone with an implant under mind control? Are there two types of implants: one for mind control, and another to resist mind control — from other implants? It doesn’t make sense. Either implants are the direct mechanism of mind control, in which case those without them are not controlled, or implants are in those who have had contact and for some reason are meant to be immune to the “mind control”.

Again, the 2nd edition is confusing and in its way, incoherent.

2nd ed: Telepathy?Radio frequencies. Extremely sensitive circuits can pick up and decode thought. Microwaves can be used to project thought into the brain. But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They create tendencies. The desire is to preserve the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum number of individuals.

1st ed p 37: Telepathy?Extremely sensitive circuits can pick up and decode thought. Microwaves can be used to project thought into the brain. But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They create tendencies. The desire is to preserve the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum number of individuals.

The difference between the two versions amounts to the presence or absence of this sentence: “Radio frequencies”. Whitley’s recent Journal article says: “The censor here removed the sentence “Radio frequencies.” By doing this, he cuts off any possibility of actually understanding the technology that must be involved here.”

It is impossible to verify whether there was a “censor”, and there has been nothing in the analysis so far to definitively suggest that censorship was involved. So far, where there have been differences, the 1st edition’s language has been consistent with: a) the voice of the characters (Whitley, the Master); b) consistent with style (concise, aphoristic, drawing subtle associations); and c) consistent in conception. The language of the 2nd edition, on the other hand: a) reflects sometimes jarring changes in tone and in the vocabulary of the characters; b) bears stylistic deflects (rambling, ambiguities); c) introduces new concepts that could be taken as specious.

There is no telling at the moment what the importance of radio frequencies is in relation to the reality of implants. Dr. Roger Leir’s research, in which at least one removed implant appeared to be transmitting on two simultaneous FM frequencies, suggests a connection. This information has been in the popular domain for between five and ten years, however, and it isn’t clear howthe removal of the phrase would accomplish much in the way of censorship compared to other changes that could have been made.

Perhaps more important are the sentences included in both editions in the same paragraph: “But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They create tendencies. The desire is to preserve the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum number of individuals.” It appears we’re back to talking about general influence and historical “tendencies”. The language of the 1st edition is perfectly consistent. The language of the 2nd edition seems tacked on. Take for example the question: “General fields of control?”

Here it is in context (all 2nd edition):How do they control this world?By planning, and they use mind control.Am I under mind control?The opposite. The technological intervention that has occurred in your case has been done to make certain that general fields of control will not affect you.General fields of control?Directional suggestion that is applied to all who are enhanced electrically. This is the means of control of military and government.

Why would the question “General fields of control?” be asked? It makes no sense in the 2nd edition. It can only refer to the answer “Very generally” — cut out of the 2nd edition. The text here shows, just like in the very first example of “monsters in the world of the dead”, that there are unartful changes made to the text of the 2nd edition. Text is excised and then new text is put in, but without fully repairing the surrounding text of the original edition. The question “General fields of control?” is a total non sequitur in the 2nd edition whose text now talks crudely of a very specific form of control —“mind control” via implants. In the new 2nd edition, the Master basically contradicts himself, talking about mind control and implants and then reversing what he says, “But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They [only] create tendencies.”

This passage appears rough and inconsistent in the 2nd edition for a variety of reasons — most of them given. But one final remark: the inclusion of the phrase “radio frequencies” in the 2nd edition could have been done not for an informational reason, but in an effort to clean up consistency after all the changes: In the 1st edition, the Master’s initially terse and unforthcoming answers on the subject of the method or the technology involved in the general “control” cause Whitley to attempt to draw him out on the subject. Thus the question “Telepathy?” as a way to get a specific answer out of him. In the 2nd edition, the Master has already been more “forthcoming” to the point of saying government and military people are controlled by implants. The question “Telepathy?” then lowers in importance and makes less sense in relation to what came before (in the 2nd edition). This is repaired, however, somewhat by providing a response after the prompting of “Telepathy?” in the form of a non-sequitur answer: “Radio frequencies”. This prevents “Telepathy?” from completely floating out there alone. “Radio frequencies” reads as if almost completely out of place because the Master goes on to discuss “microwaves”, which are considered a separate category from radio waves, and because “microwaves” are a sufficient explanation for how thoughts can be projected into the brain. Even if the difference between radio waves and microwaves is considered terminological, perhaps conflated owing to the Master’s idiosyncratic terminology, tacking “[r]adio frequencies” on at the front when the same idea is expressed better slightly later still reads like a movement away from concision — consistent with the rest of the 2nd edition text.

About the question "Am I under mind control" and its answer, not included in the first edition of the book, Whitley had this to say at his website:

I vividly remember asking this question, and thinking at the time that the 'technological intervention' that he was referring to was the implant in my left ear. I suspect that I am among a very small band of people who are not subject to this general level of control, and that my readers and I constitute the great majority of people who are free of this general influence. It is why we see the world as it truly is, and why the vast majority of people around us seem strangely blind to what to us appears to be obvious reality. They are blind. They have been blinded. For whatever reason, we can see.

The new version of The Key combined with the comments of its author appear to be suggesting that the implant, commonly believed to be a mind control device in parapolitical and even Ufo communities, is actually a means to protect the implantee from mind control ("radio frequencies"); in tandem with this idea Whitley is claiming that he (and, for some reason his "subscribers" also, though he doesn't explain why) is one of the few people on the planet immune to mind control, by virtue of the implant he received.

What's next? Whitley-endorsed implants?

It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.

guruilla wrote: Whitley read the piece (I sent it to him) but only commented on it when it started generating interest, after Mac made his “devastating” comment, and people at Strieber’s Unknown Country website started talking about it. At that point, he said something about the author being a "clever disinformation agent” and zeroed in on how I cited his brash American voice as evidence that something wasn't right with the man.

"Here it is: the most devastating and articulate summary of Whitley Strieber and his works that I've ever read. Neither facile dismissal nor endorsement, Rigorous Intuition's analysis is propelled by a sincere interest in Strieber's writings that illuminates the often schizophrenic nature of his alleged experiences"

Have you read The Key? My impression, here at RI and in other circles, is that people prematurely dismiss Strieber's work - often unread - because of Strieber's obvious "tendencies" as a person. Only it's not that simple, if it was then there wouldn't be a mystery. (It's the same around Castaneda's work, discrediting Castaneda doesn't actually invalidate the books, it only throws into question what they are and how they came about.) I'm reluctant to go on about the caliber of the writing in The Key, because it will sound like I'm plugging Strieber; but without recognizing this fact (or, if you prefer, my informed opinion), then the real puzzle is being ignored and Strieber can be written off as an opportunist or simply deluded. But he is also the source of some extremely challenging information - or at the very least some ground-breaking philosophical ideas - ideas which IMO are being ignored, or seen through a cloudy lens, by a lot of people who would take them more seriously if they had a more "reputable" source.

One of the arguments I put forward (in a second piece that ended up in The Anomalist, about Castaneda & Strieber) is that it was the profound impact of these experiences, and being exposed to such "high-level" knowledge, that unbalanced these men (Castaneda went insane, allegedly, and Strieber may be heading that way too). It's like the paranoid schizo in the bar whose ideas get dismissed because he's obviously crazy - when it's because he knows what's going on that he went crazy. So then his craziness validates his testimony, rather than invalidates it. Dig?

The irony of Strieber's reaction to my piece was that it was actually a defense of Strieber which he perceived as an attack. The problem is that Strieber (like many paranoid schizophrenics?) only seems to appreciate total, unquestioning support; he associates even constructive criticism with enemy action. Either that or, as I sometimes wonder, he is playing some sort of role. (I wondered the same about Castaneda.)

One thing about Strieber though, he's about the last person I would say was free from mind control.

It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.

That could all be true. Gnosis is of very little interest to me, though, which I hope helps explain the divergence in our goals and opinions. I've touched the third rail plenty. I find real life and rap music much more engaging, profound and important. Perhaps as I grow older I'll come full circle, but this is not that year. I always dig what you have to offer, though, keep doing the do.

Anyways, I find Strieber's work fascinating, and let me preface by saying that I have not read the entire "Key" book, but I have gone through some parts. I just thought it was another way to sell another printing of his book.That being said, I also had some Castanedan characters for roomates, one's sisters being best described as "witches"...They had some good stories; but the gnosis they had they were loathe to share, even as they plied me for any optical technical information I could provide. Over time, I think they trusted me more, but I had a strange Mayan birthsign that had some strange implications on their interactions with me. One of my roomates was really into the whole "magical passes" thing, which to me resembled the martial arts...no...Karate Kata, Gung-fu forms, Iaido is infinitely more beautiful, intricate, and magical than anything I saw. I showed him some Tengu Pilates (rights reserved) to augment some of the passes...but he was trying to open up or bind up certain energies that I just obvioulsy could not perceive or grasp. Helluva musician, though.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Gnosis is of very little interest to me, though. . . I find real life and rap music much more engaging, profound and important.

I hear you, but if "gnosis" is what it's cracked up to be, then "real life" isn't, right?

Not to get side-tracked or anything....

ShinShinKid wrote:I had a strange Mayan birthsign that had some strange implications on their interactions with me. One of my roomates was really into the whole "magical passes" thing, which to me resembled the martial arts...no...Karate Kata, Gung-fu forms, Iaido is infinitely more beautiful, intricate, and magical than anything I saw. I showed him some Tengu Pilates (rights reserved) to augment some of the passes...but he was trying to open up or bind up certain energies that I just obvioulsy could not perceive or grasp. Helluva musician, though.

Speaking of side-tracks...

It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.

In my experience real life is far more than it's cracked up to be, and at least as difficult as Gnosis. Which leads me to suspect we're talking about the same thing from different firing ranges. Cheers.

guruilla wrote:So maybe whitley needs to learn gnostic rap to get the respect he deserves?

or maybe he needs to generate e-bay market interest in spare copies of the 1st edition he's got in a box at his house.

the whole thing is questionable, sure he's probably classifiable as a modern american shaman I guess, but why specially privilege the information the The Key over other experiencer's work?

honestly, lots of people could sit down and write info just as good, just as interesting, but absent the claim of "this is real!" how many would pay the least attention? Whitley fails at one major thing... and it's something that ties back to gnostics... How can _I_ know. Does he ever give a method by which one can verify any of this stuff for oneself? (even if only by means of "astral projection" etc)

justdrew wrote:the whole thing is questionable, sure he's probably classifiable as a modern american shaman I guess, but why specially privilege the information the The Key over other experiencer's work?

The only reason I "privilege" the information in The Key over other experiencer's work is because it is more compelling as information. I could be wrong but it seems like the opposite is happening - that the information/ideas are being overlooked and under-privileged (in the more "rigorous" alternate perceptions circles) because of their source.

justdrew wrote:honestly, lots of people could sit down and write info just as good, just as interesting, but absent the claim of "this is real!" how many would pay the least attention?

I'm not sure about "lots of people" but that's unverifiable anyway. I don't think people pay more attention to The Key because Whitley says "this is real!" so much as because it's got Whitley's name on it (and he says it's real, but even if he didn't people now associate Strieber with occult/alien sources of info). Or are you referring to the alien books? He wrote a book The Path (which I haven't read) that didn't have any weird back-story but was presented as Strieber's own ideas, and as far as I know that did as well as The Key for him.

If you're suggesting that his claim of it being "real" (i.e., information from an outside source) is spurious, I'd like to hear why you think so. To my mind, that would make it not less but more bemusing and hard to explain, in light of Strieber's seeming lack of insight and equilibrium in his more personal communications.

justdrew wrote:Whitley fails at one major thing... and it's something that ties back to gnostics... How can _I_ know. Does he ever give a method by which one can verify any of this stuff for oneself? (even if only by means of "astral projection" etc)

He'd say that he does, insofar as certain meditation techniques and whatnot. But how is that a failure - is it the responsibility of a writer not only to convey novel ideas but to teach the methods by which to verify them? Isn't that up to the individual him/herself?

That said, Strieber does seem to attract/inspire a rather servile, docile kind of following, judging by some of the comments at his website. Is that what you are getting at?

It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.

justdrew wrote:the whole thing is questionable, sure he's probably classifiable as a modern american shaman I guess, but why specially privilege the information the The Key over other experiencer's work?

The only reason I "privilege" the information in The Key over other experiencer's work is because it is more compelling as information. I could be wrong but it seems like the opposite is happening - that the information/ideas are being overlooked and under-privileged (in the more "rigorous" alternate perceptions circles) because of their source.

Days of Our Lives was compelling for many too. Didn't make it real.

guruilla wrote:

justdrew wrote:honestly, lots of people could sit down and write info just as good, just as interesting, but absent the claim of "this is real!" how many would pay the least attention?

I'm not sure about "lots of people" but that's unverifiable anyway. I don't think people pay more attention to The Key because Whitley says "this is real!" so much as because it's got Whitley's name on it (and he says it's real, but even if he didn't people now associate Strieber with occult/alien sources of info). Or are you referring to the alien books? He wrote a book The Path (which I haven't read) that didn't have any weird back-story but was presented as Strieber's own ideas, and as far as I know that did as well as The Key for him.

If you're suggesting that his claim of it being "real" (i.e., information from an outside source) is spurious, I'd like to hear why you think so. To my mind, that would make it not less but more mysterious and hard to explain, in light of Strieber's seeming lack of insight and equilibrium in his more personal communications.

his "this is real" claim is key Look, all my life I've wanted to see a UFO, meet aliens, etc, etc, etc. So far - not the slightest such thing. W.S. is coming with Fantastic Claims, that "I would Like to believe" - but at some point in the last couple decades, it's seeming more and more to me like I've just been played the fool by thinking there was ANYTHING objective to this "phenomenon" - absent some experience, I'm just not that willing to play along anymore.

guruilla wrote:

justdrew wrote:Whitley fails at one major thing... and it's something that ties back to gnostics... How can _I_ know. Does he ever give a method by which one can verify any of this stuff for oneself? (even if only by means of "astral projection" etc)

He'd say that he does, insofar as certain meditation techniques and whatnot. But how is that a failure - is it the responsibility of a writer not only to convey novel ideas but to teach the methods by which to verify them? Isn't that up to the individual him/herself?

meditation techniques - the vedic's have talked about traveling with your mind to other worlds for centuries, there's still no reason to think they're doing anything other than exercising their imagination. Imagination - a word I rarely hear these bringers of fantastic tales mention.

guruilla wrote:That said, Strieber does seem to attract/inspire a rather servile, docile kind of following, judging by some of the comments at his website. Is that what you are getting at?

He's just appealing to Faith, so it's not too surprising. In fact, he may be well on his way to establishing a "theocratic band" (know where that term's from?) If I were going to make these decisions based solely on faith, taking into consideration various miracles and the like, I'd have to toss a coin as to weather to go with Christianity vs Strieberism vs something-else

and if there are all these aliens doing all this shit, and they continue to REFUSE to let me personally in on it to at least some extent, then screw them and the agenda they rode in on. I will not be gladly lied to, by omission or commission.

First of all, I would like to commend you, guruilla, for the essay you wrote in 2008. Well done.

I have/had deliberately avoided involving myself in this discussion because I don't believe in nay-saying, which is what I was tempted to do. I think the point has arrived in this dialog when I feel compelled to wade into the morass. It has to do with your analysis of the author then, in 2008, versus where you are headed with your analysis of the discrepancies in the two editions of this particular work, and whether or not you are aware of the irony inherent therein. The discrepancy, as it were, is one created by the author, and the author alone. That is my opinion.

guruilla wrote:The only reason I "privilege" the information in The Key over other experiencer's work is because it is more compelling as information. I could be wrong but it seems like the opposite is happening - that the information/ideas are being overlooked and under-privileged (in the more "rigorous" alternate perceptions circles) because of their source

There must be some point at which the source is a primary consideration. I could be wrong, but it seems like the opposite of the opposite is happening. To wit:

guruilla wrote:That said, Strieber does seem to attract/inspire a rather servile, docile kind of following, judging by some of the comments at his website. Is that what you are getting at?

Exactly. And--and this is an important point--were it not for "the source", The Key would not be in your vocabulary. Talk about mind control! You see, we are all victims. But we can also choose when to call a shovel a shovel.

You have rigorously researched much of this work. But if the source is completely full of shit, then what? Please consider this for just a moment again now, because clearly it has occurred to you before. That is no reason not to reconsider.

The thing that has struck me about the author in question - and by extension, everything he has contributed to the creation of post-modern extra-terrestrial lore - is that on all of the programs where I have been able to hear his voice (the exchanges with Art Bell, or George Noory, even Pinchbeck), the whole dialog smacks of the intellectual version of professional wresting.

I am not a skeptic for skepticisms sake by any means. But Whitley Strieber has done much to evolve my outlook on an issue where, I have to say, I have gone from being a believer and "want to believer" to feeling comfortable in dismissing anything he writes or says as not to be taken seriously. For this much I can thank him, I suppose. I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is a disinfo guy (or bother to give him so much credit), but the result of his work is about the same. By all means consider the information. But by all means, (re)consider the source.